For those of you who still believe Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, can lower the level of the oceans, is for the little guy, let's look at a few facts and not what NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and 81% of the newspapers in the country are trying to convince us of. If you can read you can easily find these simple truths for yourself. No need to take my word. I'll make it easy. Here are my sources:
U.S. Department of Energy, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau, USDA, U.S. Department of Labor, Standard and Poor's, Wall Street Journal, FDIC, The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury.
The following figures are a comparison between January of 2009 (Obama's Inauguration) and January 2012.
2009 Average price of gas: $1.83
2012 Average price of gas: $3.44 84% increase
2009 Average barrel crude oil foriegn: $43.48
2012 Average barrel crude oil foreign: $99.02 127% increase
2009 Average barrel crude oil domestic: $38.74
2012 Average barrel crude oil domestic: $91.38 140% increase
2009 Average price corn per weight: $3.56
2012 Average price corn per weight: $6.33 78% increase
2009 Average price soybeans per weight: $9.66
2012 Average price soybeans per weight: $13.75 42% increase
2009 Actual Unemployment rate: 7.6%
2012 Actual Unemployment rate: 9.4% 24% increase
2009 Actual Unemployment rate blacks: 12.6%
2012 Actual Unemployment rate blacks: 15.8% 25% increase
2009 Number of unemployed: 11,616,000
2012 Number of unemployed: 14,485,000 25% increase
2009 Number of Federal employees: 2,779,000
2012 Number of Federal employees: 2,840,000 3% increase
2009 Food Stamp recipients: 31,983,000
2012 Food Stamp recipients: 43,300,000 35% increase
2009 Population below poverty level: 39,800,000
2012 Population below poverty level: 43,600,000 9.5% increase
2009 World economic freedom ranking: 5
2012 World economic freedom ranking: 9
2009 Real National debt: $10,627,000,000
2012 Real National debt: $14,520,000,000 32% increase
So there's your change. How’s it working out for you?
REAL Numbers dont liea lthough you will get people who will claim "the reporting is skewed".in that case- i think the way the unemployment is now calculated the "obama way" cuts allot of the unemployed out....to make the numbers look better.
Information like this cannot be taken at face value.
Let me address the last item, National Debt, the last item, which states the U.S. National debt increased 32.2% during Obama’s presidential term.
This is what I learned:
Comparing national debt over time is meaningless. This comparison is similar to saying I made $3.00 an hour when I was 16, and now I make $25 an hour. Or, my electric bill in 1980 was 50% less than it is now. Meaningless, on it’s own.
An indication of the health of the economy is the debt to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ratio, shown as a percentage. A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces a large number of goods and services and probably profits that are high enough to pay back debts.
In other words, it would be comparing my income in 1980 with my electric bill in 1980. Or my income today with my electric bill today.
Debt to GDP is comparing apples to apples. Comparing debt to debt over time is comparing apples to oranges.
Below are the increase debt/GDP, in percentage points. This data is from government sources.
YEARS PRESIDENT INCREASE DEBT/GDP IN PERCENTAGE POINTS
1989-1993 George Bush (REP) +13.0%
1993-1997 Bill Clinton (DEM) -0.7%
1997-2001 Bill Clinton (DEM) -9.0%
2001-2005 George W. Bush (REP) +7.1%
2005-2009 George W. Bush (REP) +20.7%
2009-2011 Barack Obama (DEM) +15.4%
In effect, President Obama has improved the debt/GDP ratio.
I have the data going back to 1941 and the ratio has INCREASED during every Republican administration.
Remember – a lower percentage (ratio) indicates a healthier economy.
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb FOB increased a whopping 164% after 29 months of Obama. This information is simply stunning!
The world’s largest producer of sugar, from sugar cane, is Brazil at 719,157,000 tons in 2010. The U.S. produced 27,000,000 tons. The U.S. didn’t even make the list of top 10 producers.
What does President Obama have to do with the price of Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb FOB???
Debt to GDP is a typical false number that does not gauge anything. Now national debt growing has big value. It can only grow if you overspend more than you take in. If you do not overspend the debt does not grow no matter what the GDP is.
In economics, the debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the indicators of the health of an economy. It is the amount of national debt of a country as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces a large number of goods and services and probably profits that are high enough to pay back debts.
2009 Average price of gas: $1.83
2012 Average price of gas: $3.44 84% increase
* * * * *
June 2008 (G. Bush term) avg price of gas was $4.115 (source: BLS)
However, it is simply not accurate to say a President is responsible for the price of gas. This "FACT" is misleading, on its' own.
I wonder why you do not show the real facts behind the gas price under Bush?? Why, because it will reveal the President can do something about fuel prices and it will expose Obama as the failure he is. Gas was only over $4 per gallon for only a few months under Bush. He made a policy change and in six months the price fell to $ 1.73 per gallon. FACT from the same BLS report you cited. Why not tell ALL of the story ?????
Unless of course its a Republican President then its all his fault.
But, it's Romney saying it's Obama's fault....
Isn't he a Republican, and isn't Obama a Democratic president?
Your logic fails.
RMoney, the flim-flam man. And his merry band of snaggletooths.
Price of Corn, No. 2 yellow, Central IL,
Jan 2009 - 3.56
78% increase after 29 months of Obama.
- - - - - -
Interesting factoid: Price was over $7.00 per bushel in May 2008 during the Bush admin.
Similar stats re soybeans. Price of corn / soybeans is dependent on many factors, including supply and demand, weather, etc. The mild winter of 2012 will affect future prices as well.
The price of corn / soybeans irrelevant in this respect.
You must believe that President Obama's magical ability exceeds that of Moses parting the Red Sea in order to attribute the above changes to him.
To tobey100 - Obama will still get my vote. Your useless laundry list of figures do not pertain. For instance, the president has no control over the price of gasm crude, corn. Any 9th grader can tell you that oil is a commodity and price is dictated by supply and demand and the stock market. You did pass 8th grade, right?. Yes more people are on food stamps because we were in a major resession when Obama too office if you remember. We always ranked below Sweden and Holand in personal freedoms.
Obama = One of the worst things that happened to the US
I would suggest that "prettynice" go back and look at the out-control-spending efforts of a domcrat dominated Congress that was in place for the last two years of the Bush Administration before declaring that Obama has improved the debt/GDP ratio. Those two years are simply and extension of what has been in place since 2008 with Obama but really reaches back to into the two prior years before his election. The relevance of the debt is "what it is now"...it is not what you owed but what you owe and we owe more than we ever have. We are on the edge of the debt exceeding the GDP and reaching beyond. There are no other mechanisms to halt to direction except to gain control of spending at the federal level. WB
I did my research.
Tobey's "scorecard" required no research. How easy to pick and choose numbers from government sources. Sugarcane? Really???
You researched nothing, if you did you would not be citing reports that make you guy look bad
My data does not show President Obama in a bad light. Perhaps you should go back to school for reading and comprehension.
You are new here and well time to school the new boy, or lady since I do not know who you are(wink wink). Since you do not know me, I will be gentle at first. I yield to you. Pick something, anything, show me how great by legitimate numbers how great Obama is. No bloggers, no opinions, show me numbers and actual reports.
I am not defending President Obama. Or the facts on the laundry list, But, please answer one question: What did the President do to cause a 164% increase in the price of Cane sugar?
Through the Presidents green energy initiative and started under Bush, Bio fuels are an important move in green energy along with solar and wind. But like solar and wind, the technologies were not ready. Many years of research was needed to make . Everyone knows that Corn and pure cane sugar are the biggest part of the formulas. So the US bought much of the corn, which lead to a shortage of corn and rising prices. Since Brazil is the worlds biggest Sugar cane grower, the US put a trade deal in place to purchase the majority of the sugar. Of course that put sugar supplies down, which in turn drove up sugar prices over 164%. Instead of jumping into production and destroying the world supply of the food supply, perhaps we should have bought much less, developed a solid performing BIO Fuel first, one that would meet the demand, gear up a stronger world supply of sugar before we did the trade deal so as to ensure no disruption in the food supply and therefore no shortages that create higher prices.
Now do you see what was done wrong and how it could have been prevented form happening in the first place. Presidents actions carry a huge weight, regulations will drive prices up, taxes drive things up, drilling would drop the oil prices. Do not underestimate the actions of any President.
What, need Quill to help you? If you do not agree show me why. Show me something that shows I am wrong. You will not be able to because those are the facts of what happened. Twenty buck says if we pull out of the Bio fuel pool, if we cancel the contract with Brazil which in turn resupplies the world with enough sugar, guess what will happen? The price of sugar will go down.
He doesn’t want the change, he wants the folding kind…all of it…well not all,
Go back to 2008 and look at the price of gas.
Not sure about unemployment in 2008, but I do know that we stopped losing jobs as fast once Obama got into office.
AR/Tobey those numbers are too complicated for many of the idiomamalogs on HP- the pablum that flows from barrys mouth is all part of the "magic Baracko" gravy train. where skin in the game means dems grease your palm. All you need to give him is your vote and soul- NO ID NO BRAINS REQUIRED . those with freewill and cogent thoughts need not apply... The same suckers uninformed voters will get suckered again by his messiah like reverb big stage presence and non-stop socialist lies put on your hipwaders becuse its gonna get deep-fast once the Gop picks a taret for barry...
The Obamanomics fantasy continues... The president’s budget budget numbers are based upon typical liberal vodoo economic (lies I mean) assumptions that the economy will grow under policies that are in no way business freindly AKA "RAISE THEM TAXES". In the blue label fantasy land of the left the economy will grow in real terms, 3.6 percent in 2012 and 4.4 percent in 2013.BUT that does not account for the tax rate growth that lil barry is going to raise The above referennced rate/growth rate alone is at a much faster incline than CBO or private economists forecast, and nearly a quarter point faster than the economy has grown coming out of the last five recessions. The president also projects a dramatic decline in unemployment (not actually impossible based on the way Obama is now calculating the unemployment). Even though people are not working they get dropped of the UE numbers. Cook the books like Barry you to can have the numbers wherever you want
Whis jerrymandered jobless rate dropping to 6.3 percent in 2014 and then falling to just 5.3 percent in 2017 and beyond and PIGS START FLYING. Maybe, but not likely, especially given the impact of the administration’s proposed MASSIVE tax increases and the looming implementation of Obamacare -Fat chance ON ANY GROWTH. Speaking of "the jammed down or throats reconcilliation style" Obamacare, the administration continues to insist that the new health-care law will reduce the deficit (ecause thats what massive democrat-govt policies always do by nearly $200 billion, when an accurate accounting suggests that it will actually INCREASE the deficit by as much as $823 billion. Savings my buttocks....
Wow, Tom sure does seem angry. That's probably because reality isn't matching his narrative and it's making him nervous. Nothing he said above--nothing--is true in reality, and his conclusions re based on the (false) assumption that lower taxes always result in growth and higher taxes always result in a downturn. Look at tax rates and growth rates over the course of the past 100 years and you'll see that everything in Tom's post above is at best a faulty conclusion and at worst really really dumb.
It's beyond ridiculous to blame Obama for gas prices, just like it was with Bush. However, Obama is continuing the imperial wars. He also has not pushed heavily enough for progressive taxation and emissions to regulate CO2. His endorsement of the Simpson/Bowles plan is indefensible.
There has also not been fundamental education reform to get America away from standardized testing. He is better on gay rights, and doesn't openly endorse torture. He also pushed for SOMETHING to change the health care system in the United States, which is better than what we previously had. It wasn't universal health care though.
factcheck.org did the research for a "scorecard" very similar to the one posted at this site. Here is the link:
The e-mail author omits other economic statistics that would put Obama’s tenure in a more favorable light. For example, he or she makes no mention of the following:
■Obama inherited the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It began in December 2007 and ended a few months after Obama took office, in June 2009, according to economists who make up the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
■The stock market has roared back since Obama took office. The S&P 500 Index increased nearly 59 percent — rising from 805.22 on Jan. 20, 2009, to 1,280.26 two years later. (The American Thinker article mentioned big increases in the S&P 500 and in other stock-market indicators as well, but the author of the viral e-mail omitted them.)
■A total of 4.4 million jobs had been lost before Obama took office, including 820,000 the month he was sworn in. And although employment continued to slide after the economy bottomed out, and has been agonizingly slow to recover, more than 1 million jobs have been added since payrolls hit their low point early last year.
I think you need to add another three zeros to the national debt figures.
I'm not an Obama-phile (I think *all* politicians are basically the same, and those who don't fit into a particular mould don't tend to get into the "top" positions). But I do think a lot of the things you've given here are beyond the control of any individual country's president/PM.
He takes credit when things get better, so I'm guessing he'd better take the blame when things go bad. Bush was blamed for everything when he was in office, and actually there are many that still blame him for everything. So it's only "fair" that Obama gets blamed for the bad things that happen while he's in office don't you think?
Sorry..but Bush was handed a cadillac, Obama was handed a clunker.
It's apples and oranges, as pizza-man says.
The point of what Obama was handed is a joke. He made it ten times worse.
There are plenty of things to complain about that Obama is actually to blame for. I don't know why his opponents don't focus on those instead of pretending that anything that is going well in the world is doing so in spite of Obama's policies, and everything that's going wrong is because of them.
Clinton inherited a Fed deficit of 290.3 billion. He left office with a surplus of 236.2 billion.
After two terms, Bush left a 1.2 Trillion deficit.
Clinton did not leave with a surplus, that is a bogus number even exposed by the CBO and the GOA
AV, do you ever get the feeling you'd be better off talking to a wall than to try to reason with some people here on HP?
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
You can have all the facts in the world, NP, but when you're this far in the tank for the Dems, it's all completely lost in your presentation.
Also, you're conveniently forgetting the 1994 take over of Congress by the GOP. That's what kept Clinton in check.
So, you'll ignore facts if you don't like the person who is presenting them? That's kind of embarrassing, Long.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as even keel as you, Jeff. NP is far from it. It's easy to see she's in the tank for Obama and I have a tendency to dismiss Kool-Aide drinkers.
I'm not ignoring the facts but rather noting the lopsidedness of PN's presentation. She's conveniently forgetting the 1994 take over of Congress by the GOP that helped keep Clinton in check.
If you don't believe the facts, why should I bother to post them? Oh, I know, I'll just refer to the laundry list. Yes, who wouldn't believe that President Obama had the power to increase the price of Cane sugar by a whopping 165%!!!! He's Godlike . . .
If you don't believe the facts, why should I bother to post them?
I didn't say I didn't believe your facts, PN. I said they were "completely lost in your presentation." Of course, I have that opinion about all liberal Kool-aide drinkers.
I also said: . . . you're conveniently forgetting the 1994 take over of Congress by the GOP. That's what kept Clinton in check.
You still haven't addressed that little omission.
You are only part of the way there and I want you to know you are the first and only person on the left that admits Clinton added SS as income which of course we all know it is not. It has been brought up here time and again and the left always denies that fact. But you left out the Federal Pension Plans. See Clinton added what the government paid into all the benefits funds as income, not as an expenditure. That with the SS is how he showed a phony surplus. Ask yourself this, If Clinton ran the surpluses he claims he ran, then why would the national debt go up? See if the budget is balanced, the debt does not rise. But if there is a budget shortfall, the national debt grows. I know if you research further you will find the National debt grew every year under Clinton. Some years very little, but it grew just the same
That's a problem: we've used Social Security to pay for stuff other than Social Security payments: stuff like roads, congressional pet projects (AKA pork), and later, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We (congress) took the money out of the SocSec fund and replaced them with US treasury notes (what W called "A bunch of IOUs"). So now instead of having enough in the SocSec fund to pay for SocSec, we've diverted that money to buy other stuff, and now we owe that money (plus interest) to the SocSec fund.
If we had had the discipline to pay for programs (and wars) with taxes (instead of continually and irresponsibly cutting taxes while increasing spending, which is what happened during W's tenure) we'd be in better shape now. Instead, we borrowed from Soc Sec under Clinton (and possibly under the guys before Clinton--I honestly don't know when we started borrowing from SocSec to pay for other stuff) and even more under W. Heck, if I were the type to theorize about conspiracies, I'd theorize that the trend to borrow from SocSec to pay for other stuff was a Right-Wing, John-Birch, Koch-Bros plan to wreck social security without the GOP having to vote it away (and make everyone really mad at them). This way, they can argue that Social Security was an "unsustainable" program, and it only failed because of the Dems' spending habits. It's brilliant. But I don't really think that's the case. I think we got here by not thinking ahead (on both sides of the aisle).
Interestingly, the opposite of this phenomenon is happening to the US Post Office: by law, the USPS is required to pre-fund (many argue to over-fund) its pension fund, so that a larger than usual chunk of the money that the USPS takes in gets put where the USPS can't use it for stuff like paying its employees or upgrading its equipment. And the pension fund is able to take care of way more retirees than the USPS has workers. But the Right argues that the USPS is "failing" because it's "inefficient."
You are 100% right on the borrowing from SS and everyone is guilty of it. I may be wrong, it may have happened sooner, but my earliest memories of SS loans or raiding occured under Carter. Again, I am not saying he was the first, he was the first I know of.
You are aware why the USPS is i its current situation, it was poor management. They spent the retirement system and it is broke. Congress stepped in and said you will replenish what you spent, the American people are not going to pay for the retirement checks of the USPS. I think it is great they did so, I think all pension systems should be off limits and if they are spent or tapped into there needs to be some jail time for those who do so. What the USPS should have done was better management instead of spending what was off limits.
I wonder why people think they can fool us. Like being suspended under their real name then showing up back in forums with another name
"I wonder why people think they can fool us."
People think they can fool you because you have been fooled. You love to trumpet the fact that you've been fooled all over the place. You seem to be proud of having been fooled.
But the funny part is, you weren't fooled by the people you think are trying to fool you.
No one fools me I find it sad people try and use bogus talking points because they have been brain washed
projection pro·jec·tion (prə-jěk'shən)
--A psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.
Not sure why I bring this up; I just thought of it for some reason....
AV you wrote: Clinton did not leave with a surplus, that is a bogus number even exposed by the CBO and the GOA
Show me, cite it. No opinions, no editorials, just show me where the CBO and GOA deny the surplus. Show me.
From the USA Today, a report on the audit showing the deficit
"Surplus or deficit?
Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don't count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.
The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … usat_x.htm
Otay AV, I read the opinion article by Dennis Cauchon, Aug 4, 2006, in USA Today. It explains the dual accounting methods (accrual vs cash) used by government and businesses. Does this mean that that Cash accounting is used by Democrats and Accrual accounting is used by Republicans?
OTAY back at you. If you believe that was an opinion article there is no point in going further because you obviously did not read the article for if you did 1) you would have the answer to your question, 2) not reading it shows you will just blow off anything brought before you because it will expose the facts which are different than your point of view 3) we will not see PN anymore once your suspension is lifted on your real name.
How can you deny it was an opinion article when it was posted in the opinion section? .
My question above is legitimate. I am trying to learn. Do the Dems and Reps have two different accounting methods?
But, my basic question, still unanswered, is this: How was President Obama responsible for the 164% increase in Sugar cane? I would also ask about the other 20 odd items on the laundry list, but I don't want to tax you. Pun intended.
Howdy AV. I hope you are doing well. It is nice to chat with you again.
Now if I were the referee, AV, I would have to call a foul! The 2006 article in USA Today hardly proves Clinton’s budget performance numbers are invalid. I am sorry to say it is not the CBO and the GOA reports you said would expose these numbers as “bogus.”
This article is nothing but meaningless babble about accounting methodology. It offers a useless argument for throwing away the yardstick everybody has been using. Actually, the so-called “audited” numbers weren’t audited numbers at all. Combining the budget performance amounts with other projections and estimates not used for compiling the operating budget results in another perspective, not one to be confused with the actual operating surplus. Besides, Social Security and Medicare do not belong in the operating budget because they are not Government expenditures. Repaying loans borrowed from the very solvent Social Security trust fund is not an operating budget expense item; it is the reduction of a liability and part of the Capital Budget as any bookkeeper familiar with accrual accounting methods will tell you. At this time, the only obligation the Federal Government owes toward the Social Security program is the repaying of money it borrowed. It is also a step toward reducing the total deficit.
Suppose, just suppose, we buy into this smoke and mirror argument the way you seem to. If Clinton’s $559 Billion surplus is really a $484 Billion deficit then that would make the $3.544 Trillion in deficits accumulated during the Bush reign equal to, what, $9 trillion? Should we now compare Clinton’s fictitious $484 billion to Bush’s imaginary $9 trillion deficit? As I see it, it doesn’t matter what measure is used when making the comparison so long as everyone uses the same one.
I’m looking forward, my friend, to reading the CBO and GOA data exposing Clinton’s surplus as “bogus.”
Mr. Quill. You took the words right out of my mouth! lol. Thank you.
while it is true the article does talk about accounting methods anthe false ones used by Clinton, it also talks about the audits and how they were found. I know you are smart enough to know about the audits done not only by the CBO and the GAO. The GAO and CBO give their reports, the ones PN wants to follow. These are preliminary. He does not want to read or acknowledge the audited final report. This report is not only done by the CBO and GAO but by an independent outside agency, has been for decades. It was the outside agency that caught what was going on and exposed it, shortly thereafter the CBO and GAO revised their audits to show the deficits. In addition, id the budget was in a surplus, there would be no reason for the National deficit to grow, which it did all eight years under Clinton.
"Besides, Social Security and Medicare do not belong in the operating budget because they are not Government expenditures."
You hit the nail on the head so why do you not agree with me? SS and the pension and all of it does not belong in the budget, so why is it OK with you that Clinton used those numbers as income to create the false surplus? You cannot have it both ways.
And just for clarification, Bush did not use those accounting practices.
Quill one more question, if the deficit did not exist as you say, and there was no reason for the national debt to rise, how is it the national debt went up the exact dollar amount of the budget deficit after the audit? Seems the audit showed those numbers were accurate.
Hey AV. I’m back. I don't multitask well and I find it a hassle to juggle multiple threads. Forgive me if I try to blend all of our topics together.
* “Bogus” Clinton Budget Surpluses
* Clinton National Debt Increases
* Social Security Surpluses in the budget
* Accounting Methods under Clinton and Bush
You keep insisting CBO and GAO data exist to prove the Clinton Surplus numbers are “bogus” but you refuse to show them to us. Since you are reluctant to do the research to prove your claim is correct, I will do the research to show that you are mistaken. I sense you are a “Clinton Surplus Denier” and, as such, I doubt you will be swayed by the facts. But here goes:
Look at the eight Clinton budget years (1994-2001) on Table F1 of the Historical Budget Data found at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ables.pdf.
1. The total column indicates operating deficits of $497B during President Clinton’s first term and a SURPLUS of $559B during his second, a net surplus of $62B over the eight Clinton years.
2. The same table compiled from CBO and OMB sources attribute $3.5 trillion in deficits the following 8 years of GWB.
You believe that eliminating the impact of Social Security surpluses would dispel the notion of Clinton Surpluses. Not so! Look at the numbers again, AV.
3. Eliminating the net effect of Social Security reveals Clinton’s last three years still yield a combined surplus of $51B. No smoke or mirrors required just two minutes and a pencil.
If you still insist there were eight years of Clinton deficits and “the CBO and GAO revised their audits to show the deficits” then the burden is on you to produce the data that supports this claim.
*** Clinton National Debt Increases ***
I think you meant to say the National Debt. I just showed you that some Clinton years had no deficit. Yes, the National Debt did increase every year under Clinton. However, you are wrong to assume there is a cause/effect link between budget deficits and the National Debt. The net surpluses from Clinton years 1998-2001 could have been used to reduce the National Debt but instead they were used to offset the Bush tax cuts launched in June 2001.
*** Social Security Surpluses in the budget ***
I am sorry, AV, but you are wrong again. While you are trying to look at the numbers from two different angles, I am taking the data in only one way. If you look at the CBO Table F-1 once more you will find that the SS surpluses have been included in ALL of the budget performance calculations going back to 1970. While we both think they should not be included, the fact remains they are. What’s more (and this is a major flaw in your argument), Clinton’s second term (1998-2001) shows a combined net surplus BOTH ways!
*** Accounting Methods under Clinton and Bush ***
Wrong again! You fail to realize that the CBO provides one of the few level playing fields in Washington. Each President does not decide what accounting practices are to be used by the CBO! The CBO cuts through everybody’s political doubletalk and compares each administration using the same criteria. The CBO has an unblemished record of minimizing distortions. If you are inclined to believe they produce meaningful distortions just because their output is contrary to your unsupported perceptions than I shall leave you with your perceptions.
You tend to want to kill the messenger because you dislike the message! The CBO is an independent agency. The director is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President pro tempore of the Senate jointly after considering recommendations from the budget committees of both branches. All CBO analysis reveals the methods and data used to arrive at their conclusions. The activities of the CBO are controlled by statute and are beyond any official influence from political parties or new administrations. (2)
As the clock on the wall approaches 3:30am, I grow weary of conducting your research for you. I shall leave you with this footnote: Every assertion above is accompanied by verifiable sources and not one is based on my opinions or political preferences.
Be well compadre.
(1) http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ables.pdf.
It can be difficult to keep up sometimes, you are right about that. I went to the link you showed and it said no page exists.
I was not reluctant to show you the audited report, the link was right there in the article to take you to the FMS audit which also has the revised CBO and GOA reports attached. I have said it was in the article but since no one actually read the article it was missed. See All the comments show it was not read because the article IS ABOUT THE AUDITS RESULTS.
“You believe that eliminating the impact of Social Security surpluses would dispel the notion of Clinton Surpluses. Not so! Look at the numbers again, AV.”
I never said SS by itself dispels the surplus. I have consistently mentioned the other reasons such as Clinton counting the Federal benefits like retirement and the rest as Income when they are not income. It is the entire package of false numbers. You may have missed where I said
“ But you left out the Federal Pension Plans. See Clinton added what the government paid into all the benefits funds as income, not as an expenditure. That with the SS is how he showed a phony surplus”
Here Clinton not only claims he created a surplus, but that he paid down on the national debt, we know both statements are bogus.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC … n.surplus/
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (feel free to use the link and put in the dates) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt and deficit since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt and yearly deficit at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
Holdings Total National
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B
Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the totalnational debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.
When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing farmore money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Oh and once more, when you subtract the phony surplus with the debt incurred, you have the exact dollar of the year end deficit which just happens to be the same number the National debt rose showing the audit was 100% accurate, there was no surplus.
Sorry, I forgot to mention this
http://www.govexec.com/management/2006/ … dit/23351/
“However, you are wrong to assume there is a cause/effect link between budget deficits and the National Debt. The net surpluses from Clinton years 1998-2001 could have been used to reduce the National Debt but instead they were used to offset the Bush tax cuts launched in June 2001.”
I really need to hear this one. You are telling me that Clinton had a surplus, could have paid it down but held it somewhere for Bush in 3 years could spend it on a tax cut. Really, And what if Gore won? Look if there was a surplus in 1998 there would be no reason to add to the national debt. THAT is what the national debt is, the amount of money accumulated over the years because there was a budget shortfall, plain and simple, hence why the national debt rose the amount of Clintons shortfall. The numbers do not lie. If he has a real surplus, there is no reason in the world for the national debt to go up, it may not go down if they do not pay it down with the surplus, but it cannot go up. Bush had nothing to do with 1998 as he was not even in office yet, Come on Quill, now you are starting to sound like the rest of them, it’s all Bush’s fault. I know you are better than that.
*** Social Security Surpluses in the budget *** I never said it was, I never would make such a statement
“Wrong again! You fail to realize that the CBO provides one of the few level playing fields in Washington” The CBO is not a level playing field. The CBO merely takes information given them at face value and give a result. They are fed the information and must strictly abide by it. Several former CBO heads have all said that to be the fact. They knowingly give numbers they know are not accurate but have to give them based on parameters set, not what they find on their own. Obamacare was a prime example of false numbers being given and the CBO said so at the time and even now as they changed all the projections of Obamacare and its real costs. They cite .informqation not given them for the earlier report.
Sorry the charts did not come out well. It would have shown everything but if you hit the links you will see them in there proper format
I should have mentioned that while the left had clung to the CBO as impartial, notice how they area attacking the CBO now because the CBO did not come to the same conclusions over Obama's budget.CBO told them they only used the figures presented to them which the feel are not acurate, but used them anyway
Hey AV. We have a credibility problem!
It seems you ARE reluctant to show us the “audited reports.” Did you actually follow the link in this article and read the “audited” report that supports your claims? There is NO LINK in this article to any audited reports dealing with the Clinton surpluses. The ONLY link in this article refers to “The culmination of improved record-keeping is the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," an annual report similar to a corporate annual report. (The 158-page report for 2005 is available online at fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html.)”
In the end, you still have not produced the CBO and the GOA reports that support your claims and expose these numbers as “bogus.” I am looking forward to continuing this discussion when you do.
I think blaming either Bush or Obama for many of the figures in the OP would be like blaming my cats for changes in the weather.
Sorry--looks like he's Romneys boy now.
Geuss he'll have to equivocate on the NDAA.
Yes, but it is odd how he makes an attack ad calling Santorum a fake, and let's Mitt slide on his fakeness.
Just something that seemed odd. Becaue the first thing I thought was: how is Rick fake, and not Mitt?
I just don't trust Ron Paul.
Who can you trust? He's been consistent for 30 years.
Obama, your master, has been inconsistent for his whole career.
"Ron Paul openly disagrees with Romney." And 90% of the country dissagress with Ron Paul.
Give it a rest.
Our whole problem is 30 years of greedy policies, and the fact that the greedsters block every attempty to correct them.
You're not fooling anyone.
It's a bitch being POTUS. I always blame Congress not the president. He can veto but sometimes that doesn't change the Congress' vote in the long run. So the power greedy on both sides of the aisle are to blame.
It's really ashame that the world lives in a constant state of fear over one thing or another, most of it propagated by the holy trinity of politics/media/legal.
"Our oil supply is NOT down. We have drilling going on everywhere. AND lower demand. The ONLY reason gas is rising is WALL ST speculators!"
First-- I'm confused as to how the price of foreign oil rising is Obama's fault... wouldn't that be most likely OPEC's doing?
Secondly-- people attribute too much power to the President. He's limited in a lot of things he can do, and in reality, you'd be surprised by how little actual power the constitution gives to the President versus congress. Really it's not very fair to blame all the problems on one person.
With the US "deciding" not to drill opec has no reason to lower their price-
supply n demand-if US has only one supply----> Opec our demand grows only to OPEC- so does the price sincerises from OPEC, the US now has no other sources our own oil now off limits everywhere due to BO and he wont allow a pipeline to Canada...so if you arent solving the problem you are PART OF IT......
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the information/viewpoint.
Domestic Oil Production Has Soared Under President Obama | The number of oil drilling rigs in the U.S. hit a record last week, having quadrupled in number over the past three years. Between oil and gas drilling rigs, the U.S. now has more rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. The current oil boom has buoyed the projections of some leading oil industry analysts:
“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”
Be honest, the increase in drilling is because of the permits and leases approved by Bush and now are online.
I seem to remember back in the Bushco days, when the Dems in Congress held a big sheet, with the words "Release the Oil" on it....methinks that Obama released that oil, after ElBushbo wouldn't.
OPEC could just as easily cut production to keep the price up.
The US has not decided "not to drill." Why would you say that?
U.S. oil production:
Correcting the misinformation in forum comments would be a full-time job for a bunch of people.
Well some of that "limited" power has been circumnavigated by a little thing called "Executive Order". There have certainly been a fair share of abuses by both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Oh easily, I would definitely agree with that. No one side is guilty of all! And Executive Orders are a sticky thing-- they can easily go to Court, and if they're too radical for the American publicl, well.... the President just shot his hopes for getting re-elected.
"Let’s start here: In December 2011, impervious to dire consequences for the global economy, the U.S. Congress -- under all the usual pressures from the Israel lobby (not that it needs them) -- foisted a mandatory sanctions package on the Obama administration (100 to 0 in the Senate and with only 12 “no” votes in the House). Starting in June, the U.S. will have to sanction any third-country banks and companies dealing with Iran’s Central Bank, which is meant to cripple that country’s oil sales. (Congress did allow for some “exemptions.”)"
"Iran has halted oil shipments to Britain and France, as retaliatory measure against fresh EU sanctions levied against the Middle East nation."
Obama was the best choice in 2008 and without a doubt he is the best choice in 2012. I don't know why the best and the brightest in the republican party refused to run in 2008 and also 2012. Maybe it is because ovious true lies and hogwash had to be told and repeated by weaker candidates willing make fools of themselves. A change is gonna come and change so far has been good, inspite of the far right wingnuts .
Now that we know how Russia's Nashi Youth group has been playing dirty counter protest propaganda tricks,I'm wondering how may people are paid by the Koch Brothers, the corporations, and the Republicans to write pro right wing propaganda.
Where are the jobs, Republicans?
Ask Obama, he and his party had control of both houses of congress and the presidency, at the start of his term. All they could come up with is the socialistic program called Obamacare.
Yes, commonsense inspite of the blue and yellow dog democrats that were and are in the house and senate he got healthcare and financial established. I got to admit, it was by the hair of his chiny chin chin. He got A lot established but the far right pulled the emergency brakes on the economy. " Take the President credit card" I think he did many more positive things than you mentioned, but that's just me.
Man--you have a short memory!
Do you recall the Filibuster?
Used more than any time in history?
Do you remember the goal of the GOP was to derail Obama in any way possible?
Filibuster....Filibuster.....Filibuster. Then blame him for being a "do nothing".
Filibuster is a liberal tool and you know it. When the Repubs started to use it against the Dems, the Dems came up with the nuclear option. Dems love to change the game and shut everyone else out
"Shut everyone else out" is Kasich banging the gavel--he made it official.....good thing ole LMC likes C-Span, and saw it.
Glad you saw it to. Of course you forgot to mention the Dems were already using that tactic and did not like when it got shoved in their face. I wonder how you manage to see everything on CSPAN 1,2,3, Rush, all the MSNBC shows, ALL the Fox shows everyday. Every time something is said or heard you saw or heard it live as it happened.
Government/Politicians cannot create jobs, so asking where are the jobs is ridiculous. Government/Politicians can only create the environment where business feels confident enough to create jobs. So far democrats have proven they hate business.
"Obamacare" is capitalist, run by private insurance companies for private profit. It is corporate socialist fascism when government by law forces
the purchase privately owned insurance.
The price of gas and crude oil has to do with the stock market and commodities trading. I remember paying almost $5 a gallon in the summer of 2005. Where was the market at in 2009? I can't say exactly, but somewhere near the toilet. Now that the market is up by 13,000, gas prices rise with the strength of the market. That bit is invalid, along with all the other commodities in the list. The unemployment data reflects the extensions of the unemployment benefits. I don't exactly like the benefit extensions, but I probably would if I was one of the people in that situation. The unemployment rate is on its way down so you won't be able to cling to that forever. Besides, without the extensions, the numbers would be much smaller. The federal government is still less than 1% of the population, doens't seem so awful considering the task at hand. The bit about food stamps is troubling, but not as troubling as those people not having enough to eat. I'm willing to buy these people lunch, because I don't see a charitible infrastructure in place to handle that.
All these number are important and telling.
Other important numbers will be the ones needed to control the House and Senate. Then we'll be able to control Obama if he's reelected.
Then there's the next set of important numbers: how many will vote FOR articles of impeachment and throw this bum out before he does even more damage.
As for oil and gas prices, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the OPECers and the problems going on with Iran. Obama could allow more drilling here but actually effecting the numbers at the pump would be little and slow in coming. Perhaps if we would aggressively go after our own oil, we could one day tell the OPECers where to stick theirs.
Oh, wouldn't you love to see the look on the OPECers faces when they're selling their oil for $15 a barrel and the gold Mercedes for lunch money?
My greatest wish is for the Arab nations to apply for U.S. Foreign Aid!
"All these number are important and telling."
The numbers are important and telling, but it's also true that they're not the only important and telling numbers. For example, this set of numbers makes no distinction between new policies of the Obama administration, and legacy obligations from the last guy.
This blog post on the Washington Post's site paints rather a different picture.
This video takes a long-view analysis and concludes that the Obama-era stimulus package seems to have actually managed to turn the economy back in the direction of sustainable growth.
Like the old adage says, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"Then there's the next set of important numbers: how many will vote FOR articles of impeachment and throw this bum out before he does even more damage."
Just out of curiosity, what charge would you impeach Obama on?
Serious question, friendly voice.
"As for oil and gas prices, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the OPECers and the problems going on with Iran."
Indeed, but Iran's crankiness has its roots in early 20th Century European colonialism and more recent US interventionism. It's not terribly honest to dismiss Iran as a nation of belligerent cranks--there are reasons Iran is angry, and some of those reasons are, well, reasonable.
"Obama could allow more drilling here but actually effecting the numbers at the pump would be little and slow in coming."
True--oil company execs have said as much. Also, speculators have more effect on the prices of oil than domestic drilling would.
"Perhaps if we would aggressively go after our own oil, we could one day tell the OPECers where to stick theirs."
Or, if we'd gather the political will to finance a Manhattan-project level of research on sustainable/renewable energy (since energy is, after all, a national security issue) we'd be able to tell OPEC, sorry, guys, we don't need your oil anymore. You wanna buy some of our energy tech?
http://townhall.com/video/comparison-ga … bush-obama
Same thing happened under Bush.....it's the speculators to blame.
NO new federal taxes have been added to gas under Obama.
And who is causing the problem with Iran and why? Ask AIPAC.
And Obama is drilling more here now than Buscho did..and going for nuclear, alternative, natural gas fracking even...
Your facts are off by a mile.
And we long ago gave Arab nations foreign aid. OPEC. Reagan.
Just curious. How much are you paying for gas where you live, LMC? It's probably more than I'm paying here - $3.50.
No motive. Just wondering.
Depends on the gas station. Yesterday, I paid $3.64.
But....30 miles up, it was $3.53.
I understand that down here, they don't get the volume, and must make up for it by charging more...I do understand that.
What I don't get is how some stations charge more or less in the same area?
In my area it's been fluctuating between about $3.19 and about $3.60, again, depending on location.
Why is it suddenly LMC is using Bush as an ecuse."oh it happened under Bush so its OK for Obama too" What part of history do you not get??? I do not give a rats a** why the price of gas went up over $4 under Bush. All I cared about was once it there, he acted and in 6 months gas dropped to $1.73 per gallon. DROPPED !!!! What has Obama done................................. That's right , NOTHING!!!!
How did Bush "act" to reduce the price of gas? The truth is that he had nothing to do with the price going up or down. The price of oil is determined by world market forces. Bush (and Obama)can do little to affect the price of gasoline. The only thing Congress and the president could do to affect the price of gasoline would be to increase or decrease the gasoline tax.
I suggest you read my article on how a President can influence gas prices. From the article:
"President Obama’s next move also raised gas process. Obama rescinded the Executive Order of President Bush allowing for more drilling and leases. Obama said that those leases and drillings would have no effect on future supplies. How wrong can he be, let me count the ways. During President Bush’s term, gas went up and down. There was several issue that drove prices up. Numerous natural disasters in the gulf, Florida coastline, wars in the Middle East. But overall it was stable, until 2007. Gas began to flirt with $ 3 per gallon, go above, come down, but it held there till late 2007, then the march to $4 began. June 2, 2008 we arrived at $ 4.02 per gallon, it fluctuated there and continued to climb. President Bush realized we needed to increase domestic resources in order to get away from the unstable world crude market. On July 14, 2008, President Bush lifted an executiveorder to allow for more drilling and approving of more leases. On August 4, 2008, gas dipped below $4 per gallon and continued to dive to the low price of $ 1.89 on the day Obama took office. One action by President Bush dropped gas prices $ 2.13 per gallon in six (6) months."
As I pointed our earlier oil production has been increasing under President Obama. There are plenty of government oil drilling leases that aren't even being used.
Moreover, please explain why it's to our advantage to use up our domestic oil reserves only to become dependent on oil from the Middle East? Why not save our oil and let Saudi Arabia drain its pool of low cost oil? Anyway the price of gasoline in the U.S. is dependent on the world price of oil and refining capacity in the United States, both of which are beyond the control of the President.
Here's a good piece on oil and coal and natural gas subsidies:
"What possible reason is there for giving Exxon the odd billion in extra breaks? Year after year the company sets record for money-making—last year it managed to rake in a mere $41 billion in profit, just failing to break its own 2008 all-time mark of $45 billion."
http://www.thenation.com/article/167228 … mailNation
Because the GOP is looking to bring Bush policies back....but worse. Doubled-Up, on steroids.
Don't kid yourself. Supreme Court...2 members attend Koch summits. How is this in line with a Republic? more like a Republicorp.
Always bring back what works. Show me something Obama did that worked and you can bring him back, but nothing has and he has not answered the question what will he do different that will make things better. We already know all the wrong moves he will make if he gets reelected.
Everything he's been allowed to do has worked. We just need more of it! Sayonara party of No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no .......2012 yet? Not yet?? okay.......
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
China is eating our lunch on renewable energy. And high-speed rail.
And mr Oilman Koch has been in the courts for a decade to stop the wind farm off Nantucket Sound. See--the dude claims to hate American gvt, but he sure uses its court system to help him out! Meanwhile, people are dying of cancer near HIS operations! (Koch Bros Exposed)
No really, who tabled 2700 bills in the last Congress. Why that would be Harry Ried. Please get off the obstruction kick, it is such old stale BS. Like i said, you could not show me one thing that worked. Wonder what twist she will come back with now
I told you....EVERYTHING worked! Without the party of No, we would be so far better!!
Because we could have gone all-out. But since this Cult determined to ruin a president, we got but a smidgeon of what we deserve.
No worries. No matter what....it's all under control. I have faith!
Talibangelists and greed-balls do not get to own America. Sorry. Try another planet
Hi again, AV. I have one more point if I may.
It is funny to see you use almost the same words last July in a challenge to LMC. At that time, you said…
As I recall you, you rejected the government reports offered to you then because they did not conform to your perception of reality.
So, may I submit the following for your consideration?
1. While job creation and real estate values continue to plague the economy, The United States is better off than most of the other industrialized nations. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from 8,000 on Jan. 30, 2009, following President Obama’s inauguration, to 13,074 on 04/04/2012. This tells me investors’ equity and big business have appreciated 63% during the last three and one half years. More significant, however, the economy has turned around for everyone except working class Americans who are still struggling with stagnant wages and no new job creation in the business sector.
2. As for government policy under the current administration, please read Why TARP has been a success story by Robert J. Samuelson. It was published about a year ago by The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html
You have to be open to looking beyond all the TARP shortcomings to see the successes.
As you know, I never claimed this President is the greatest thing since peanut butter and jelly in the same jar. But to say “show me something Obama did that worked” suggests the need to expand your news sources.
So, I offer you just two examples in answer to your challenge to LMC, not to change your reality or to attack your perception of President Obama’s administration, but rather to demonstrate that a large segment of the American electorate totally disagrees with you.
Long time not to hear from you my friend. I hope all is well with you.
Unfortunatly as you point out, the challenge to LMC is the same for one reason and one reason only, nothing has changed, nothing has worked.
If you recall then I told you that unemployment would go down because the election was coming and they would find more ways to not count unemployed people. My prediction held true. Back then Obama was not counting about 400,000 people in the unemployment report, not that number is close to 3 million people. Nothing has changed, those people are still on and collecting unemployment, just Obama chooses to not count them to bring unemployment down. Also and not to be picky about BS numbers this administration likes to toss around, but how much did you buy into the “we have had job growth for over 25 months” story? Did you go hook line and sinker like all the other “large segment of the American electorate”? According to the BLS, in 2010, Jan, Feb, June, July, Aug, Sept were all months where we LOST jobs, had a negative job growth. Do I need to show 2011, not really, we are well within the time frame of the claim od growth. And why is it in June 2010 we lost 200,000 jobs and unemployment did not go up(remember my complaint to you back then as to why did the unemployment not rise) and yet in January 2011 we add 19,000 new jobs and unemployment dropped 4 tenths of 1 percent. Ad you wonder why I find fault with the reports. I cannot take things at face value, I have no faith in them. See I have questions, and that really screws up the faith thing, so I do the research into the real numbers.
As for the stock market, I can point out to you that it was highest under Bush at over 14,000 but what does that prove? Nothing. Of course Wall Street is a good investment, they cut to the core, made business leaner, doing the same productivity with tens of millions less employees, so profits are up as expenses are down, dividends and portfolios look well. Why should that surprise anyone, I mean other than the tens of millions who lost their jobs and cannot find anything, who lost their homes and more. Yea I am sure the economy has been a real joy for them and their portfolios.
I have read the OPINION article as that is where it is placed because that is Mr. Samuelson’s opinion. Of course much has changed since then and the CBO has had several studies since then as the true cost of the Tarp Program and while I could not find it I will and present you the link to read. At last report, the CBO put the cost of TARP over the money allocated for TARP. In other words we lost more than we were even suppose to spend in the first place. All the publicized failures within TARP that were not know at the time of the article, happened after the article and continue to happen would I imagine have a different outlook on what Samuelson wrote. Just like the Auto bailout Obama loves to cling to. Well it turns out later of course it was not needed, GM was going to be bought out by Ford, you know, the company that did not take one penny of bailout money. GM was going to be saved anyway, net result, we lost taxpayer dollars.
So indeed you offer two examples, but we are still at the same question, what has Obama done, answer is still nothing. This is not a perception, it is a fact. A perception is LMC response "everything" or maybe perception is not the right word, fantasy land might fit better
Please cite the subsidy, show us the actual bill they all voted on
It's called the "depletion allowance." Look it up.
Oil Depletion Allowance
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JF … letion.htm
Call it for what it is, depreciation, just like any other business can take. And do not sit there and say "oh only the oil companies do that" Please, you here about big companies taking depreciation charge offs all the time for hundreds of percents over the original investment. Sorry, you still have not shown a SUBSIDY yet. You do know the difference between a subsidy and a tax break? Depreciation is a tax break, funds given to Solyndra, now that is a subsidy.
AV, All I can find for a budgetary funding amount for FY 2013 for all fishery research is is $372,000
http://appropriations.house.gov/Uploade … 120328.pdf
Call it what you will. The oil companies don't need a depletion allowance or a tax break or loophole. Exxon-Mobil is probably the most profitable company in the history of the world. Coal mining companies or gold mining companies don't get a depletion allowance. The oil company depletion allowance is unique to the oil industry.
I guess that if Obama has that control over the problems listed here it doesn't really matter whether he's voted out or not, does it?
Somehow, I don't think Tobey did it
lots of e-mail BO bashing sites around.
I'll never forget the one I got....
"My Fellow Ammuricans!!! Did you know that Obama is a racist who hates his own mother and grandparents?
It's true! Professor Glenn Beck told us on his show!
And, he cried.....Ohhhh, *sniffle* *sniffle*....such a Patriot!
Now we told you once before that Obama would love to pour gasoline down your throats!
Our sister Michelle Malkin now reveals the truth!
Obama is pouring gasoline on the George Zimmerman self-defense shooting by saying the hoodlum looks like him!
Please pass it on quickly! The future of your country depends on it!!
As we know--Obama is a socialist, a socialist, as Sarah Palin told you this morning on the Liberal NBC network!"
@ts obama is lousy...republicans would have doubled debt by now and inflation would have gone sky high....obama must be fired for being so slow...
When it comes to the price of gas, IMHO, it's ludicrous to blame Obama or Bush for high gas prices. The only way they could really effect the lowering of the price at the pump is to drill here now. But, even then, the change would only be seen over time. We might see a small dip but I think it would be short lived.
Until we kick drilling for oil here into high gear, we're at the mercy of the OPECers. That won't happen until we have a person in the White House who either isn't Obama and will allow drilling here on a much larger scale or someone who will tell the environmental weinies are told to go hug a tree.
In turn, the oil companies must be held accountable for making sure their facilities are safe for the environment so things like the BP mess doesn't happen again.
I agree with you about blame, LH and I respect your opinion about oil, but it's shortsighted because oil continues to pollute the planet—especially with better options like natural gas and incentives/rewards for higher efficiency in our cars and products.
I recall your side kicking and screaming about making cars more fuel efficient just ten years ago and now Detroit has achieved those goals and is finally starting to compete with foreign auto makers.
Even Bush agreed that "it was time to kick our dependence on oil."
I don't have a problem with the search for alternative energy, Wizard. Lets just be realistic about it and stop throwing millions of dollars at companies that soon go belly up. Lets get the oil we have here while at the same time search for REAL alternatives.
An exaggeration, LH. Solyndra was just ONE company and it went belly up because the Chinese poured millions into their program to undercut the opposition here in the US—which says a lot about the future of the industry.
Really LH? And what about the oversight of waste in Defense? Moneys totally wasted and thrown down the $hithole!
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with an increase in the Pentagon’s budget, have led to an increase in total military contracts to over $400 billion, their highest levels since World War II. Private contracting has grown to such a level that, in 2003, there were more private contract employees involved in the war in Iraq than uniformed military personnel. These contracts have been highly concentrated in the hands of just five contractors- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics- accounting for over one-third of all Pentagon contracts."
http://dpc.senate.gov/hearings/hearing2 … report.pdf
http://costsofwar.org/article/growth-co … ofiteering
Yes, really, Wizard! Just like we need oversight on what the defense contractors are spending the money on. It's OUR money and I have a tendency to want to know what the hell is being done with my money.
I have a feeling you do to. Am I right?
Of course, LH but let's have a sense of proportion here—a half a billion is a far cry from 400 billion.
Sure, there's a huge difference, Wizard, but waste is waste.
Why should we sit back and allow any of it in our government when we try to eliminate from our own budgets?
The point being LH, you are very quick to point out what you termed "waste" which was primarily a failed investment that might have worked—as opposed to a giveaway of corporate welfare where the size is also an important distinction . . . that you conveniently ignore.
While no one will disagree there is waste in the DOD budget, there is 1,3 trillion in unapproved spending that occurred last year because there was no budget. How about 200 billion in Salmon research.
Yeah how about it, AV? I couldn't find anything on the web when I did a search for "$200 billion+salmon research."
That sounds like a really exaggerated number—a link please.
"While no one will disagree there is waste in the DOD budget, there is 1,3 trillion in unapproved spending that occurred last year because there was no budget. How about 200 billion in Salmon research."
Yeah how about it, AV? I couldn't find anything on the web when I did a search for "$200 billion+salmon research."
AV, All I can find for a budgetary funding amount for FY 2013 for all fishery research is is $372,000
http://appropriations.house.gov/Uploade … 120328.pdf
That sounds like a really exaggerated number—where did you get it?
He (AV) got it here.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … ding_x.htm
There's nothing about "200 billion dollars in salmon research" in that article. That's bilion with a "b."
He's already got your change. Missing a wallet? Some jewelry? The good silver? Chances are....he's got htat too. Better check on the dog.
Obama wouldn't do anything to my dog. She has no job and lays around all day and night waiting for someone give her what she wants. She depends on me for her food and medical care. She was even in the welfare system at one point - the city pound.
Yep, Obama wouldn't do a thing to my dog because obviously she's a Democrat.
Limbaugh: "It Is Obvious" That Obama's Campaign Is "Aimed At The Welfare State And ... The Stupid" http://bit.ly/Hfa415
Bow to your Master, Obamanators!!
El Rushbo, Russssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Talent on Loan from God...has deemed the rest of us Stupid.
But, say Rush, are you talking about the Oil companies, or the Timber companies, the Uber Rich, or the big corporations when you mention welfare?
"The GOP can only lie through their tooth to stay competitive."
Hence, the term snaggletooths. Good to see some of us Amigos are on the same page!~
by My Esoteric 3 weeks ago
During the first seven years of the Obama administration, the DOW grew at roughly 10%/yr. (I discounted most of 2016 because of the artificial Trump bump caused by his promise of a big tax give-away to corporations.So far, the DOW has increased about 3.7% annually from Feb 1, 2017 to Jun 25,...
by WeStand4Freedom 8 years ago
Impeachment of a President One would think that the impeachment of a president is not conducive in showing him support.”Give him a chance,” people say. President Obama, to be exact, has been in office for a year now. He has done a lot of damage in that year. I have seen not one...
by GA Anderson 4 years ago
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.Here is just one link from a Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
The labor department released the jobless numbers and the good news is the rate dropped to 9%! The bad news is only 36,000 jobs were created...So what's the story? It seems the numbers don't add up! AP reported more than a year ago that it would take 3 million new jobs created to drop the...
by Sharon Stajda 6 weeks ago
My question - President Trump was well known for this statement. "You will get sick of winning." Are you sick of winning? Trump's economy once again this month beats projected unemployment numbers... 18 year low. ...
by Josak 5 years ago
I think it would be great if we could debate the economy not on the basis of "commonly known" or presumed but on the basis of provable facts with sources. I'll start, US deficit for 2009 (last budget made by Bush administration) 1.41 trillion, 2013 budget deficit is 901 Billion, meaning...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|